Progress in Polymer Science Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: Progress in Polymer Science author guidelines, Elsevier.

Use this page when you are still deciding:

• whether the proposed topic has timing headroom relative to recent comprehensive reviews
• whether the author team's standing supports the authority a PPS review requires
• whether the scope justifies a 50-150 page comprehensive treatment
• what the proposal letter must accomplish

Before submitting a proposal, the package should already make four things easy to see in 1-2 pages:

• the specific topic or argument the synthesis will advance
• why the synthesis is needed now (a 5-year accumulation of new evidence, a methodological consolidation, a paradigm shift)
• what differentiates the proposal from existing reviews on adjacent topics
• why the proposing authors are the right team for this synthesis

At minimum, the proposal includes:

• a working title and 250-500 word scope outline
• a "why now" paragraph naming the specific polymer-science inflection
• a paragraph distinguishing from recent PPS, Polymer Reviews, or Macromolecules pieces
• author CVs demonstrating primary-research depth in the topic
• proposed length and approximate structure

Common failures here are timing and authority failures, not formatting:

• Recent comprehensive coverage of the same topic. PPS editors check existing literature. A proposal overlapping a recent PPS, Polymer Reviews, or Macromolecules review is the most common rejection.

• Author standing is in adjacent rather than central polymer chemistry. PPS commissions reviews from polymer scientists who have built the topic's primary-research foundation. Proposals from authors known for adjacent work are routinely returned.

• Synthesis argument missing. "A review of recent advances in [topic]" is not a synthesis argument. Editors look for a specific framework, organization, or framing the field needs.

• Scope wrong for the venue. Topics that fit a 30-page Polymer Reviews piece often don't justify a PPS review's depth.

PPS is Elsevier's flagship polymer-science review journal, with an editorial standard tuned to comprehensive synthesis by leading authorities.

Authority-driven selection: PPS reviews are read as authoritative because the authors built the field they're synthesizing. The authority bar is higher than for Polymer Reviews or specialty review journals.

The 5-year timing window: PPS rarely commissions a comprehensive review of a topic covered by an existing PPS or Polymer Reviews piece within the last 5 years. The exception is a synthesis with a clearly distinct angle: a contrarian framework or a methodological consolidation.

The breadth standard: PPS serves the broad polymer-science community across synthesis, characterization, structure-property, processing, and applications. Sub-discipline-specific reviews fit Polymer Reviews or specialty journals better.

The proposal needs:

• a synthesis-level argument or framework
• one defensible "why now" inflection
• author CVs that establish primary-research authority
• a clear point of view, not a neutral catalog

The strongest PPS proposals sound like a senior polymer scientist briefing the editorial office on a synthesis the field needs.

They usually:

• state the synthesis argument in one sentence
• explain the timing inflection in two sentences
• distinguish from existing reviews briefly
• establish author credentials with primary-research evidence
• propose a working title and approximate structure

If the proposal sounds like the authors are seeking validation for a topic without a clear synthesis argument, the response is usually slow.

• Is Progress in Polymer Science a good journal?
• Macromolecules submission guide

Before drafting the proposal, run it through a Progress in Polymer Science proposal-readiness check to confirm the timing, angle, and author authority case is strong.

In our pre-submission review work with proposals targeting PPS, three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of PPS proposal rejections trace to author-authority mismatch with the proposed polymer subfield. In our experience, roughly 30% involve timing collisions with recent PPS, Polymer Reviews, or Macromolecules pieces. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from proposals that read as comprehensive surveys without a specific synthesis argument.

• Author standing is in adjacent rather than central polymer subfield. PPS editors weigh authority heavily because PPS reviews are read as authoritative for 5-15 years. We observe that proposals where the corresponding author has built a primary-research career in an adjacent polymer topic, but not the exact one, are routinely declined. SciRev community data on Elsevier review journals consistently shows that successful PPS proposals come from polymer scientists with 10+ primary-research papers in the exact subfield over the last decade.

• A comprehensive review of the topic appeared in adjacent venues recently. PPS editors check Polymer Reviews, Macromolecules review issues, and Nature Reviews Materials. We see that proposals overlapping a recent comprehensive review, even one in a different venue, are declined unless the new piece offers a clearly distinct synthesis. The 5-year window is the operational standard.

• The proposal is a survey, not a synthesis. Editors at PPS look for a specific framework or argument the field needs. We find that proposals framed as "a comprehensive review of recent progress in polymer topic]" are routinely returned with the suggestion that the authors articulate what specifically the synthesis will reorganize, argue, or establish. A [PPS proposal-readiness check can identify whether the proposed argument and authority case are strong before submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places PPS among the top polymer-science journals globally. SciRev author-reported data confirms typical 4-6 week proposal evaluation windows.